I love it! This brilliant piece is hilarious and captures perfectly the stream of thought of a man on his way to and at a stress test at his cardiologists. As has been mentioned before, Mr. Anderson is the master of digression, something he displays perfectly in this piece. Highly recommended.

In this fascinating piece, Mr Anderson examines himself when placed in a confrontational situation with a racist at a restaurant. Things turn for the worst and the whole piece is told from a retrospective point-of-view with an ingenious suspense ending.

For his Masters thesis Mr. Temchine studied the "failed" UN PLaza in San Francisco and the effect it has had on the space it was designed for, over the years. Though Mr. Temchine acknowledges that city planners hated the plaza before it was installed, he does not allow them to be correct. Instead, he focuses on the plaza's place in the city's heart and minds, its effect on the homeless problem of SF, and the philosophy of city design. He also touches on the hopeless attempts to revive the plaza speckled with remarks from the many personalities involved. Very interesting, even to a non-SF resident.

Mr. Anderson uses interesting editing that both moves the story and, after time, mildly irritates. The audience must struggle to catch every detail, but the payoff is well worth it to the attentive listener. What Mr. Anderson accomplishes with the fact-paced no-pause cuts is a train-of-thought that moves about as fast as a brain does (or as fast as a mouth can imitate it), and the story matches that idea: God is telling the narrator to do a daisy-chain of things that lead to an eventual, endearing ending. The result is an hour's worth of material in a sprightly nin-and-a-half minutes. If I were a station, this isthe type of piece I would run, but not make a habit of running, as some listeners may not like its quick style.

Pure simple fun. I would have liked it if Mr. Mitchell used made the Terminator more eloquent in situations where only "Affirmative" and "Negative" were used, but this was probably intensively time consuming as-is.

This fascinating objective approach to modern and historical love is mind-blowing in its structure -- an intermix of "expert" and nonexpert declarations (by not labeling the lay from the pro, Miguel Macias forces us to accept all opinions without discretion, and points out the personal nature of our views on the subject), voiceacted prose and recitations -- and entirely schizophrenic. But that's the idea. As different as our ideas of love may be now, they are similar compared to different thoughts of love over time. Is love expressed? Does it exist? Is it affected by (socio)economic influences? This deeply thoughtful, sometimes sentimental, sometimes caustic, entirely cerebral piece forces listeners to take a step back and think about all these, and form our own opinions.